4 ms·

I believe in companies having freedom to do what they want but I also believe in civil rights. We need the civil right to prevent large corporations from discri

I believe in companies having freedom to do what they want but I also believe in civil rights. We need the civil right to prevent large corporations from discriminating against opinions they do not like.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
I don't believe governments should force private companies or people to publish or say things they don't want to. But I do think there is an issue where companies that are monopolies control large parts of public discourse. I would prefer the right to be able to participate in public discourse without being tied to particular companies. For example, interoperability protocols for messaging and social networking. Then people have the power to engage with who they like and companies can no longer control the flow of information in the same way. In the earlier days of the internet this is what it was like, before Facebook and Twitter monopolised and controlled information flow.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > I don't believe governments should force private companies or people to publish or say things they don't want to. Do you believe governments should force private companies to serve people they don’t want to? If so, then you understand how civil rights work. It’s not enough to ensure the government respects our rights, the government must also ensure that private companies respect our rights. Free speech has become a civil rights issue.
  - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
    I believe governments should prevent companies from discriminating against people in very limited ways. These are protected characterists such as race or sexual orientation Generally these are things that are innate to a person and are not a matter of choice for them. I don't believe political viewpoints fall into that category, but I'm willing to hear any good arguments that they should be.
    - CyberRabbi 5y ago
      > I don't believe political viewpoints fall into that category, but I'm willing to hear any good arguments that they should be. If you don’t believe that political viewpoints should be a protected category then you are condoning private entities pressuring the public into certain political viewpoints. If I cannot use Spotify unless I agree with their politics then that will strongly influence me to agree with their politics to the extent that their product has utility in my life, which may be to a significant degree. This may be in a situation where my politics wouldn’t ordinarily align with Spotify’s if I were left to my own critical thinking. I believe we should generally limit the amount of influence private companies have on the political viewpoints of the population. Especially when these private companies can be very powerful corporations controlled by a relatively small amount of people. Especially in a democracy.
      - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        I do agree that the control that just a few large monopolies have over public discourse and information flow is a huge problem. I think we need to limit their power by ensuring that no company can have such a monopoly, and I'd like to see greater choice and interoperability. Break up the network effect that gives them this control. I don't think making political viewpoints a protected characteristic is a good way to achieve that, and would cause as many problems as it would solve.
        CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > I don't think making political viewpoints a protected characteristic is a good way to achieve that, and would cause as many problems as it would solve. By this logic, civil rights for race, etc. was not a good way to solve the discrimination issue. The real solution would have been to break up large companies since if there are no large companies then different races and sexes could just open up their own businesses to serve their own communities without the need to force other small business owners to serve people they do not want to serve. But that is obviously not the problem civil rights aim to solve. Allowing companies to discriminate by any identity characteristic promotes the Balkanization of society which is something we do not want. Democrat and republican enclaves are just as fractious to the nation as white and black enclaves. What problems would civil rights for political orientation cause that civil rights for race, sex, etc. do not cause?

MattPalmer1086 5y ago

I don't believe governments should force private companies or people to publish or say things they don't want to. But I do think there is an issue where companies that are monopolies control large parts of public discourse. I would prefer the right to be able to participate in public discourse without being tied to particular companies. For example, interoperability protocols for messaging and social networking. Then people have the power to engage with who they like and companies can no longer control the flow of information in the same way. In the earlier days of the internet this is what it was like, before Facebook and Twitter monopolised and controlled information flow.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> I don't believe governments should force private companies or people to publish or say things they don't want to. Do you believe governments should force private companies to serve people they don’t want to? If so, then you understand how civil rights work. It’s not enough to ensure the government respects our rights, the government must also ensure that private companies respect our rights. Free speech has become a civil rights issue.
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  I believe governments should prevent companies from discriminating against people in very limited ways. These are protected characterists such as race or sexual orientation Generally these are things that are innate to a person and are not a matter of choice for them. I don't believe political viewpoints fall into that category, but I'm willing to hear any good arguments that they should be.
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    > I don't believe political viewpoints fall into that category, but I'm willing to hear any good arguments that they should be. If you don’t believe that political viewpoints should be a protected category then you are condoning private entities pressuring the public into certain political viewpoints. If I cannot use Spotify unless I agree with their politics then that will strongly influence me to agree with their politics to the extent that their product has utility in my life, which may be to a significant degree. This may be in a situation where my politics wouldn’t ordinarily align with Spotify’s if I were left to my own critical thinking. I believe we should generally limit the amount of influence private companies have on the political viewpoints of the population. Especially when these private companies can be very powerful corporations controlled by a relatively small amount of people. Especially in a democracy.
    - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
      I do agree that the control that just a few large monopolies have over public discourse and information flow is a huge problem. I think we need to limit their power by ensuring that no company can have such a monopoly, and I'd like to see greater choice and interoperability. Break up the network effect that gives them this control. I don't think making political viewpoints a protected characteristic is a good way to achieve that, and would cause as many problems as it would solve.
      - CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > I don't think making political viewpoints a protected characteristic is a good way to achieve that, and would cause as many problems as it would solve. By this logic, civil rights for race, etc. was not a good way to solve the discrimination issue. The real solution would have been to break up large companies since if there are no large companies then different races and sexes could just open up their own businesses to serve their own communities without the need to force other small business owners to serve people they do not want to serve. But that is obviously not the problem civil rights aim to solve. Allowing companies to discriminate by any identity characteristic promotes the Balkanization of society which is something we do not want. Democrat and republican enclaves are just as fractious to the nation as white and black enclaves. What problems would civil rights for political orientation cause that civil rights for race, sex, etc. do not cause?